OK, let’s start at the beginning. You don’t know what “direct democracy” means. If all the citizens met in a single forum to consider and pass laws, that would be a direct democracy. Ancient Athens governed itself that way. Obviously almost all states since ancient times have been too large for that style of democracy. Instead we have a representative democracy: citizens vote for representatives to meet and make laws. But as I stated repeatedly through the piece, a truly democratic election means “one person/one vote.” All and votes must count equally. But since the Constitution requires two Senators to each state, big or small, that means every vote in Wyoming has 40 times more impact than every vote in California. Why is that hard to follow? You didn’t actually read the piece, did you? If you had, you would have known that I condemned our electoral vote system for choosing a President on exactly the same grounds: voters in the less populous states have more say in electing a President than do voters in more populous states. I am fully aware that our Constitution creates the undemocratically weighted system that frustrates the will of the majority of the voters. What I am saying is that it is time to fundamentally change that system, and stop worshiping the ancestors who created this model to meet the needs of 1789. Again Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton et. al. never thought we would still be asking them them to solve all out big problems for us. The Founders knew that their system was not democratic. They didn’t believe in democracy — one person, one vote — as most people in democratic societies do. And I wished to suggest that it will take courage for Americans today to change the undemocratic elements in the 1789 Constitution. The views expressed in your comments represent the party of cowardice.